Licensing Sub Committee minutes

Refused · A decision has been taken, against.

The Licensing Sub Committee considered an application for a full variation to the premises licence for Flames Grill, Havelock Road, Hastings, to allow the sale of alcohol by retail on and off the premises. p6p7

The premises is within the Council's Cumulative Impact Area (CIA), and the Licensing Authority and Sussex Police objected to the variation on the grounds of preventing crime and disorder and preventing public nuisance. p7

The Sub-Committee refused the application in full, concluding that granting the variation would be likely to add to cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. p16p21

2 further sentences of this summary were held back by verification and are not shown. We only publish claims that survived checking against the cited passages.

Show the 4 passages this is based on

• p65. Application for a full variation to a Premises Licence with representations for Flames Grill, Havelock Road, Hastings. The Chair noted the absence of the applicant. Officers confirmed that the applicant and their representatives had confirmed their attendance on 21 February (received by Officers on 23 February) but that the representatives had communicated again with the Council overnight on 24 February (received by Officers on 25 February – the day before the hearing) requesting an adjournment due to the recent ill health of the representatives. Officers confirmed that although the representatives had stated that they could not attend, the applicant had originally indicated attendance. No further communication had been received to explain the applicant’s non?attendance despite clarification being sought the day before the hearing. The Clerk further explained that access to the hearing via Microsoft Teams had been offered to all participants should remote attendance have been required. The Sub-Committee considered the circumstances together with the communications received and agreed that the hearing would proceed in the public interest in the absence of the applicant. The Legal Advisor referred to Regulation 20 of The Licensing Act 2003 (Hearings) Regulations 2005 which permitted the authority either to adjourn or to continue when a party failed to attend without indicating an intention not to do so. The Chair invited parties to present their cases, beginning with the Licensing Officer’s report. The Lead Practitioner - Licensing explained that the hearing concerned an application for a full variation of the premises licence for Flames Grill, Havelock Road, Hastings. Four representations had been received from responsible authorities, including the Local Authority acting as the Licensing Authority, Sussex Police, the County Council’s Public Health Team and the Planning Department at Hastings Borough Council (HBC).
• p7One additional representation had been received from an interested party, the Community Safety Manager at HBC. The Sub-Committee was informed that the variation had been submitted by GT Consultants on behalf of the applicant, Mr Kanik, who held an existing licence for late?night refreshment at the premises. The application submitted on 5 January 2026 sought to vary the licence to allow the sale of alcohol by retail both on and off the premises between 3pm and 2am from Sunday to Wednesday and between 3pm and 4am from Thursday to Saturday. Additional non?standard timings were sought to extend permitted hours until 4am on Sundays preceding bank holiday Mondays. A copy of the application was detailed at Appendix A1, the existing licence was at Appendix B2, together with a map of the local area. The Act required the applicant to advertise the application and notify the public via a blue notice, and it was confirmed that this had been done correctly. Copies of the application had also been served on responsible authorities in accordance with the regulations. The Licensing Authority and Sussex Police had objected to the proposed variation on the grounds of the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. The premises was located within the Cumulative Impact Area (CIA), where policy created a presumption of refusal for new licences or variations unless the applicant could demonstrate no negative cumulative impact. Applicants were encouraged to seek legal advice when applying within a CIA and were expected to provide evidence demonstrating that the variation would not add to existing cumulative impact or undermine the promotion of the four licensing objectives. The Sub-Committee heard that the applicant was required to describe the steps intended to promote the licensing objectives, and that those steps would form the operating schedule within the application and existing licence documents.
• p16It was noted that the New Year period typically involved higher levels of intoxication, but similar issues occurred throughout the year, particularly in warmer months. The Sub-Committee sought clarification as to whether the behaviour seen on CCTV was an isolated incident. Police representatives stated that other incidents involving the premises had occurred. Sussex Police representatives continued by stating that changes in the night?time economy had led to increased antisocial behaviour among youths who could not access licensed premises. A takeaway venue could become a meeting point for young people, some of whom might lack the maturity to manage conflict, that risk was heightened if alcohol sales were permitted. Councillor Bacon asked whether any similar premises in the vicinity held the type of licence being sought. The Lead Practitioner -Licensing responded that Scoffers held a licence until 5am but did not sell alcohol. A previous venue on Claremont, known as Kebab Hut and Pizza, had once held an alcohol licence, but this had been revoked in 2010 following a serious incident. Other former venues in Queen’s Road had previously held licences but no longer operated. It was confirmed that no comparable premises currently held a licence permitting alcohol sales of the type proposed. Summing up Police and Licensing representatives reminded the Sub-Committee that they had recently upheld the Cumulative Impact Policy when considering applications including where applications were considered to pose lower risk than the present application. Representatives were united in considering the application to be high-risk and inconsistent with the policy’s purpose. There being no further summing up, the Chair thanked all parties for their participation and advised that the Sub-Committee would retire to deliberate and reach a decision. The Sub-Committee retired at 12:20 to deliberate and reconvened at 12:50 to announce its decision to REFUSE the application.
• p21Alternatives to outright refusal The Sub-Committee carefully considered whether the concerns could be addressed by the imposition of conditions or by granting only part of the variation. However, given what the evidence demonstrated about on-the-night management and escalation, and given the absence of a sufficiently detailed and enforceable operating model capable of demonstrating effective risk control in this CIA setting, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that conditions—however stringent—would reduce the risk to an acceptable level. In particular, conditions cannot of themselves ensure appropriate managerial judgement and intervention at the point risk arises, and the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated the competence and approach necessary to prevent the variation adding to cumulative impact. Conclusion For all of the above reasons, the Sub-Committee was not satisfied that the applicant had rebutted the CIA presumption as referenced at paragraph 14.40 of the s182 Guidance, nor that the applicant had demonstrated the positive proposals, mitigation and exception case anticipated by paragraph 8.43 of the s182 Guidance. The Sub-Committee concluded that granting the variation would be likely to add to cumulative impact and undermine the licensing objectives, in particular the prevention of crime and disorder and the prevention of public nuisance. Refusal of the application in full was therefore the appropriate, reasonable and proportionate decision. The parties to this application are entitled to appeal to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days of receiving the decision and reasons.